Constitutional Court

KI106/19, Applicant: Mark Nikolla, Constitutional review of Decision Ac. No. 496/18 of the Court of Appeals of 20 March 2019

KI106/19, Resolution on inadmissibility, adopted on 7 October 2020, published on 28 October 2020

Keywords: individual referral, enforcement procedure, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Referral was submitted by Mark Nikolla, residing in Gjakova.

The Applicant alleges that the challenged decisions violated his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 3 [Equality Before the Law] of the Constitution.

With regard to this allegation, beyond the allegation that the decisions of the regular courts are contrary to Article 3 of the Constitution, the Applicant has not submitted before the Court any concrete arguments and/or justifications regarding the violations of his rights alleged by him.

In this regard, the Court recalls its case law according to which only the mention of an article of the Constitution, without clear and adequate reasoning as to how that right has been violated, is not sufficient as an argument to activate the machinery of protection provided by the Constitution and the Court, as an institution that cares for the respect of human rights and freedoms. (See, in this context, the cases of the Court KI02/18, Applicant Government of the Republic of Kosovo [Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning], Resolution on Inadmissibility of 20 June 2019, paragraph 36; and KI95/19, Applicant Ruzhdi Bejta, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 8 October 2019, paragraphs 30-31).

As explained above, the Applicant does not bring any additional arguments or reasoning before the Court in support of his allegations of violation of his constitutional rights. Consequently, the Court, based on its Rules of Procedure, namely paragraph 2 of its Rule 39, must declare this Referral inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, because the Applicant does not prove or sufficiently substantiate his allegation.